Rosenbalm v. Foulk

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL without prejduice because plaintiff failed to comply with the order to pay the filing fee. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/10/2009: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 In Re. 9 VINCENT ROSENBALM, 10 Plaintiff. / On December 15, 2008, the court denied pauper status for plaintiff and ordered him to 11 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-3508 SI (pr) No. C 08-3643 SI (pr) No. C 08-5239 SI (pr) No. C 08-5335 SI (pr) No. C 08-5459 SI (pr) ORDER OF DISMISSAL United United States District Court 12 13 14 pay the full $350.00 filing fee for each of these actions by January 5, 2009 or each action would 15 be dismissed. That deadline has passed but plaintiff never paid the filing fee for any of the 16 actions. Accordingly, each referenced action is dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with 17 the order to pay the filing fee. The clerk shall close the file for each of the referenced cases. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2009 ______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?